PDA

View Full Version : hypothetical ethics discussion


tahunua001
July 13, 2012, 08:54 PM
hello all.
recent discussions regarding population controls and local events have come together to create a interesting topic that I felt like addressing. allow me to pose a hypothetical scenario.

let's say that we have a certain game animal in the area. the local hunting laws restrict harvest to only mature males, making females and immature males illegal to hunt. as a result over generations the female population rises and since all of the healthy, larger males are being harvested while the smaller sickly ones are left in the gene pool all of the male offspring are also smaller and harder to distinguish from juveniles. with none of these animals being harvested the population explodes and the animals begin to starve. the local authorities refuse to bring the population down to healthy numbers and refuse to lighten the restrictions on harvest requirements, meanwhile the animals suffer.

so say a group of outdoorsmen take it into their own hands to thin the population and take some of the strain off both the animals and the land. even though there is no malice, they do not take trophies, and they only want to help the game even when the authorities won't, they are labeled as poachers and face serious charges if apprehended.

so my question to the internet is
are these men justified or are they simply poachers with no regard for the law?

Tickling
July 13, 2012, 09:16 PM
It's poaching.

Those animals will die one way or another anyway. It's only speeding up the process a bit. It could be argued to be more humane, but why do it?

Brian Pfleuger
July 13, 2012, 09:22 PM
They're poachers.

If you want the law changed, work to get it changed.

We are a society of laws. Within normal reason, we do not get to decide which are just/right/proper and which are not.

That's anarchy.

They're poachers, and the situation is an excuse. No small group of people could possibly affect the population of an entire regional species and do so "under the radar". It won't work and it's an excuse to be criminals.

phil mcwilliam
July 13, 2012, 09:45 PM
Is it OK to break the law because you feel you can justify your actions??, The answer is no. Any poacher will try to justify their actions, being it putting food on the table, or "just trying to keep the population in check".
If it is a major problem, start a petition, form a lobby group, & try & get the law changed, even if for a one off cull managed by game wardens.

Hansam
July 13, 2012, 09:52 PM
Its poaching. No matter how good the intentions behind it you're still breaking the law and you're still poaching.

If you're truly not happy with the situation then work to get the situation changed legally. By going about it outside the law and taking things into their own hands the sportsmen are no longer sportsmen - they've become poachers and law breakers.

tahunua001
July 13, 2012, 10:15 PM
Is it OK to break the law because you feel you can justify your actions?
not that I'm condoning these actions I think I would be remiss if I did not point out that that the founding fathers of the U.S. were in just such a place. they were commiting treason and breaking the law of the land for reasons which they felt justified. they lobbied and potitioned their government to change it's laws before war broke out. at what point does anarchy become justifiable defiance?

granted that there is a major difference between wildlife management and revolution but are not all Americans obliged to challenge laws which they consider unjust, unethical or just obsolete?

Brian Pfleuger
July 14, 2012, 12:19 AM
You're talking about different universes. There is no comparison. The one is irrelevent to the other.

The same argument could be made about seatbelt laws, fishing limits, car mufflers, marijuana...

We are a nation of laws, within any normal circumstance, we do not choose which laws we follow and which we don't.

When they start burning people at the stake because they *insert action here*, we can start talking about disobeying laws.

Until then, it's nothing more than justification for criminal behavior, a way to appease one's conscience.

While we're at it, anyone posting in this thread ought to keep the forum rules in mind....

5. Topics and conduct that will not be tolerated:
Drive-by cut and paste posting
Puerile bickering
Political Advocacy posts, or any purely political topic. However, some very few exceptions may be made.
Conspiracy threads or posts
Posts or threads on Race, Religion, and Sexuality
The End Of The World As We Know It (TEOTWAWKI), AKA: SHTF or Doomsday threads and Zombie threads
Knowingly and willfully advocating violation of a standing federal or state law (any state)
Violating our Copyrighted Material Policy

kilimanjaro
July 14, 2012, 12:25 AM
It's a definite lack of ethical behavior. Poaching, however justified, is a crime. Wanton kiling of game animals is also a serious felony. The Margaret Sanger eugenics defense will not go very far in court, for good reason.

Pond, James Pond
July 14, 2012, 01:34 AM
If the law says "no" and they do it, it is poaching.

Your poll makes two statements: one about the law and so a statement of fact, other other a question of ethics and so opinion, so already while a person may feel it is right to do, it will still be poaching....

Aside from that, there is an aspect to the scenario that I don't fully agree with.

as a result over generations the female population rises and natural selection takes hold and since all of the healthy, larger males are being harvested while the smaller sickly ones are left in the gene pool all of the male offspring are also smaller and harder to distinguish from juveniles.

Firstly, "juvenile" and "small and sickly" are not the same thing.

There is nothing to say that the juveniles of today will not grow into fully developed, strong males in their time...

IMO, if there are small and sickly bucks, that has nothing to do with the law: a rifle bullet is not drawn to only healthy bucks, but whatever you sight in the crosshairs.

If, in hunting, people target the biggest buck they can find, then that is the cause of the dwindling gene pool. They are the ones being shot, when in fact, in the wild they'd be the most likely to survive.

If only "sickly" bucks are left around to breed, then the healthy male population is being over-hunted. Otherwise those smaller bucks wouldn't get to see any "action" with the big guys still around....

Seems to me that there are two plausible solutions to this scenario:
1. Allow for hunting of some of the female population, rather than the males. As one male can impregnate multiple females, then the females are the ones to control.

Or

2. Reintroduce the region's and the deers' natural predator; presumably the wolf. That would ensure that only the strongest bucks and does are available for breeding, because even with option 1, hunters are likely to go for the fine specimens (strong genes) as opposed to the weaker ones (which is what the wolves would target).

For me that seems to be one disadvantage of rifle hunting as a means of pop control: it does not seem to target the weak, but the strong, given that the range and speed of a bullet is such an advantage for the hunter. A big prize is more appealing than a small one, a big target easier to shoot than a small one etc

So, ultimately, there probably will be a weakening of the gene pool, unless hunters actively look for deer that are not prime examples of the species...

BIG P
July 14, 2012, 05:24 AM
Yes its poaching.Ethics discussions come in many ways.How about this your the game officer for the area,You come up on a man that you know that has lost his job, Has 4 kids and is just down & out by no fault of his own.The man has never been in trouble of anykind, you know a good guy.But he has a illegal deer in his truck.He tells you the kids are hungry & he has no money You know this to be true.

This is poaching too,What would you do? I know some would say this is the USA,just go get food stamps let someone else pay for it.There are still some Americans that really dont like that chain of thought.So witch is the less of the 2 evils?

Kreyzhorse
July 14, 2012, 06:39 AM
You can't justify those actions, it is clearly poaching.

Like Peetza said, work to change the law and make an impact for the good of the entire state's herd, not just a local population.

Art Eatman
July 14, 2012, 08:26 AM
The original premise is flawed. The makeup of a population of whitetail has had this same argument applied.

It is just not possible to clean a pasture/woods of mature bucks. Even so, the genes are passed on during the rut. If not by Ol' Biggie, then by his son, Ol' Biggie-to-be, who has the same genes.

That said, harvesting only the bucks can create a surplus of does and a population which grows beyond the carrying capacity of the land. That leads to a reduction in average body size of the entire herd. (Gee, sounds like central Texas, to me, Martha. :D)

When I moved back to the old family place outside Austin in 1967, there were way too many deer on the place. In those days, I could get one doe permit for each fifty acres. Yuck. I ignored the law and went on a culling campaign. Does, mature spikes, and scraggle-horn bucks. Gutting a deer in August in Texas ain't no fun. But, all were eaten.

After three years the average body weight was up 20 to 30 percent. The bucks had decent horns. What I'd done was reduce the herd back toward the carrying capacity of the land. Just like my grandfather had explained to me some twenty-five years before.

Poaching? No. Call it jury nullification. :D Rational agricultural practice in ranching--for deer instead of cows, sheep or goats.

A few years and many tax dollars later, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission publicized that they had also learned about carrying capacity after controlling the numbers in one high-fence pasture and not controlling the numbers in another high-fence pasture.

I have no problems with obeying rational law. But when a law contradicts known and sound agricultural practice, I go with reality. I'm not going to plant row crops up and down a hillside, either. The land comes first.

BigMikey76
July 14, 2012, 09:28 AM
Poaching, plain and simple.

I give this the same response I give to my high school students when they try to justify breaking the rules: If you know and understand the rules, there is no excuse for breaking them. If you don't know the rules, then you need to learn them, because ignorance is not a valid excuse.

The rules are there for a reason. Whether we agree with the reason, or even know what the reason is doesn't make a difference. If we disagree with the rule or the reason behind it, there are ways to try to get it changed, but the first step in any legitimate attempt to change a rule should be to OBEY THE RULE. By doing so, we demonstrate that we are law abiding citizens whose requests should receive due consideration. Breaking the rule demonstrates the opposite, and will only serve to strengthen the resolve of the people on the other side of the argument.

are not all Americans obliged to challenge laws which they consider unjust, unethical or just obsolete?

Absolutely. It is not only the right, but the responsibility of each citizen to question our leaders when we think they are wrong. Challenging a law and breaking it, however, are two different things. Your comparison to the American Revolution is really no comparison at all. Our founding fathers were British citizens who felt they were being denied the rights that their citizenship should have guaranteed. They tried for many years to go through proper channels in order to achieve the change they were after, and they eventually concluded that the actions of the British government were, by its own standards, criminal. I don't think the same concept applies to game regulations, no matter how you twist it.

rgrundy
July 14, 2012, 09:50 AM
If the law is not Unconstitutional obey it. Hunting is a privilege not a right in most states so yes it is poaching. The Bible even says to submit yourself to rulers so there is no justification there either.

buck460XVR
July 14, 2012, 10:44 AM
are these men justified or are they simply poachers with no regard for the law?

Pretty simple question deserving of a simple answer........Dirtball Poachers. Sorry, but every poacher comes up with a personal justification of why they poach. Truth is, they are criminals with criminal intent.

not that I'm condoning these actions I think I would be remiss if I did not point out that that the founding fathers of the U.S. were in just such a place. they were commiting treason and breaking the law of the land for reasons which they felt justified. they lobbied and potitioned their government to change it's laws before war broke out. at what point does anarchy become justifiable defiance?

There's a 'ell of a difference between poaching animals in today's modern society and the fight of a people 230 years ago against Tyranny. This is grasping at straws in a most ridiculous way.

Double Naught Spy
July 14, 2012, 11:29 AM
let's say that we have a certain game animal in the area. the local hunting laws restrict harvest to only mature males, making females and immature males illegal to hunt. as a result over generations the female population rises and natural selection takes hold and since all of the healthy, larger males are being harvested while the smaller sickly ones are left in the gene pool all of the male offspring are also smaller and harder to distinguish from juveniles. with none of these animals being harvested the population explodes and the animals begin to starve. the local authorities refuse to bring the population down to healthy numbers and refuse to lighten the restrictions on harvest requirements, meanwhile the animals suffer.

Regardless of the illegal aspect of poaching in the "hypothetical' query which as Art has pointed out is not a new query/argument, what I find most troubling is the clear lack of understanding of what is going on or the overly creative justification for killing. Either way, it is pretty ludicrous.

If natural selection is taking over (which is a blatantly stupid notion since hunters have culled the population heavily and so isn't natural and in response to whatever impacts that there are on the population, natural selection is always in operation amongst the remaining population), why would you think you need to have hunters go in and cull the population? What is it that you think "natural selection" means? So the animals are starving for a few years. Yes, it is a horrible tragedy, but you know what, natural selection will take care of that if allowed to proceed. Going in to artificially cull the population isn't letting natural selection do its job just like the over cull of large males didn't.

Natural selection is not a kind process. It never has been. Nature is not kind at all. Every few years we see jackrabbit and prairie dog population explosions followed by population crashes that happen quite naturally, but nobody is worried about the jackrabbits and prairie dogs. So long as there is habitat, the population will adjust accordingly.

The notion that hunters taking all the big healthy males has left a population of smaller sickly individuals is naive at best. The trend may be for a reduction in the size of the individuals within the population which is a perfectly natural result, but being smaller does not indicate that they are sickly. In fact, the smaller individuals may be much more healthy. If the population explodes relative to the food supply, as with populations of large animals that end up on small island such that over time, the species actually reduces in overall size on that island in a process called insular dwarfism. The classic example of insular dwarfism that has been repeated in different parts of the world is with the dwarf mammoth elephants (rather silly terminology like jumbo shrimp).

In short, when a selective process acts on a population, the population will respond naturally. So when large males are selected against, in this case by hunters, the population will respond naturally. The overall size of individuals in the population may be reduced, but that is not an indication of poor health. So ethically, it would be wrong to go out and to try to kill off a bunch of this alledged smaller sickly population because you are not letting natural selection respond appropriately. All it really sounds like is a way to come up with a faux scientific justification to go out and shoot animals in the name of helping them. That doesn't wash. Also, human hunters being what they are, you can bet that the hunters are not going to just cull the "sickly" undersized adults. As already noted, males are hard to distinguish from females and and both from juveniles. So what your hunters are going to likely do is end up shooting the biggest individuals they see, further damaging the potrential for the desired larger sized individuals.

Sure Shot Mc Gee
July 14, 2012, 12:47 PM
are these men justified or are they simply poachers with no regard for the law? Good thing this is a hypothetical ethics discussion. Otherwise those men would stand trial and be adjudicated as being guilty of poaching. In most States I believe deer in the wild are considered a Natural Resource. Thus a States deer herd falls under State restrictions and laws set by those elected officials holding office. In that States Legislative Branches. One option a resident has to perhaps change his or her's current law. Is their Vote at election time.

Art Eatman
July 14, 2012, 12:58 PM
In a way, this is much like the argument between Arizona and the DOJ.

Police powers are delegated by the people to the State. If the State refuses to act, who's left?

For deer, all you have to do is look for a browse line in the trees, where the deer have to eat tree leaves instead of herbs and forbs. (Same as in goat pastures.) You can drive down a highway at 70mph and tell whether or not the land is overloaded. (Lotsa "ruint" land between Phoenix, AZ, and Uvalde or Sonora, TX.)

When a pasture is over-goated with deer and the State doesn't act? "You take care of the land and it will take care of you." -- My grandfather, circa 1942.

By and large I have no resentment at following game laws. Easy to obey, since most of them are quite sensible. But the land itself is far more important. Ruined land doesn't feed many people.

jmr40
July 14, 2012, 01:18 PM
There is want is legal, and what is right. We have a tradition in this country of doing the sensible thing. I'm not a drinking man, but the 18th amendment which banned "intoxicating liquors" from 1920-1933 was one of the dumbest laws ever conceived and was largely ignored by everyone. It lead to greater crime, corruption in LE and politics, destroyed faith in Law enforcement and elected officials that is still a problem to this day. Many other laws were only changed because a group of people refused to obey them. Think of the civil rights movement. The 1994 AWB was largely ignored and unenforced in the majority of the country.

I think I would be remiss if I did not point out that that the founding fathers of the U.S. were in just such a place. they were commiting treason and breaking the law of the land

This is a valid point and anyone who does not understand this needs a refresher course in American history. Civil disobedience is an American tradition that has been used since the beginning of this country and is often necessary to make positive changes.

The same is true of game laws. Baiting has been illegal here in GA forever, but that law was ignored and unenforceable for so long that the GA legislature finally conceded to make it legal in the southern half of the state. There was more opposition in the north so this is the compromise they came up with.

I will not advise someone to break a law, but would not call anyone a poacher who did this.

Buzzcook
July 14, 2012, 01:32 PM
If a dozen voters walk into a state representative's office things tend to happen.
That is especially true if there is no cost to the rep or to government giving them what they want. More so when government could get some revenue.

Art Eatman
July 14, 2012, 02:33 PM
"If a dozen voters walk into a state representative's office things tend to happen."

Before passage, 67% of the American people opposed Obamacare.

JerryM
July 14, 2012, 03:48 PM
I suppose one can think of a scenario to justify in his own mind whatever he might desire, but we are a nation of law, albeit poorly executed sometimes. I am not aware that any state does not have a game department that is dedicated to proper game management.

If you do not agree with the way they do it then go to the legislature, but the thought that you should break the law just because you think you know best is the height of nonsense. It will also get you convicted of a rather serious crime.

Let the state game management people handle it. I do not think such a scenario as posed by the OP can be reasonably possible today.

Jerry

Art Eatman
July 14, 2012, 06:53 PM
Jerry, in general I can agree. But a goodly number of people understood "carrying capacity" long before anybody ever heard of a game department. For that matter, even TP&WD didn't understand it until the 1970s. Such knowledge was commonplace in my family in the 1800s.

It's not always a matter of "thinking" about knowing best--or at the least, better.

Based on sixteen years of employment in government, I guarantee you that such employment does not create wisdom. :D

Pahoo
July 14, 2012, 07:12 PM
The foundation in any hunter's code of ethics, is to obey "all" state's DNR laws. That is what we teach to young hunters during our hunter safety classes. .... ;)

That is not to say that they don't make mistakes that we have to live with but that's life. Iowa has made it's share of mistakes and hunters and game are now paying the price. .... :)

so say a group of outdoorsmen take it into their own hands to thin the population and take some of the strain off both the animals and the land.
Perhaps totally uninformed and somewhat self serving and they know better than the state's DNR. There are town meeting where these concerns can be addressed and prefered to breaking the law.

Be Safe !!!

Double Naught Spy
July 14, 2012, 07:14 PM
We have a tradition in this country of doing the sensible thing.

Wow, to say that and then follow it up with Prohibition and treason sort of kills the argument. You can just as well argue that in this country, we have the tradition of doing stupid things. This is a valid point and anyone who does not understand this needs a refresher course in American history.

JerryM
July 14, 2012, 07:49 PM
[Jerry, in general I can agree. But a goodly number of people understood "carrying capacity" long before anybody ever heard of a game department. For that matter, even TP&WD didn't understand it until the 1970s. Such knowledge was commonplace in my family in the 1800s.

It's not always a matter of "thinking" about knowing best--or at the least, better.

Based on sixteen years of employment in government, I guarantee you that such employment does not create wisdom.]

Hi Art,
Usually the dedicated hunters are ahead of the game biologist. I saw it here in southern NM where a hunter found his kill of a bighorn had scabies mites. He reported it, but the expert PhDs had to study it, and for several years. It resulted in decimation of the herd here. Quick action could have saved many sheep for restocking. It has never been clear to me why problems that require quick action with obvious solutions have to be studied for years, and then they conclude what hunters have known for many years, as in the case of your family in the early years. In some cases severe damage has already occurred, and it takes years to correct the situation.

However, I think in general the game departments do have the best
interest of the game populations at heart. Accordingly, I think that
the scenario posed considering what we have learned about carrying capacity would prevent such. In addition we have annual meetings of the game commission and whoever is interested to make our voices heard.
NM waited much too long to institute a permit system for deer, and we were far behind AZ in our game management.

I do not think we are doing a good job in the area of predator control, and along with the drought the deer herd has greatly decreased in the last 15 or so years due to mountain lions and coyotes.

In any case, I think most of us agree that ignoring of the law and poaching is not the way to correct the sometimes obvious errors of the game managers.

Regards,
Jerry
__________________

Gunplummer
July 14, 2012, 08:59 PM
I hit this late, but you said "It is not possible to poach out a woodlot or pasture of mature bucks" (Or something like that). You live in Texas and things are different there. You better believe it can be done in the North East.

tahunua001
July 15, 2012, 12:00 AM
The foundation in any hunter's code of ethics, is to obey "all" state's DNR laws. That is what we teach to young hunters during our hunter safety classes. ....
interesting, game laws were never even brought up when I was in hunters ed. they do mention that it is your responsibility to educate yourself on local game laws but ethics and law have almost nothing to do with each other.

it is illegal to purchase a Cuban cigar while it is legal to purchase an identical cigar made in the Dominican Republic. is a person smoking a Cuban cigar automatically an anarchist and unethical person.

in some areas of the united states it is actually a punishable offense to swear in public. this is not a law that was made for your safety, it serves no purpose whatsoever and only exists because someone, somewhere felt that foul language was so repulsive that it should be illegal. if you catch yourself swearing like a sailor even though you know it's wrong are you automatically a criminal?

let's swing that another direction. all persons living in Nazi occupied europe during WWII were required by law to turn in any Jews that they found to authorities. many didn't because they knew it was wrong to do so and many were caught and faced severe punishment from the german SS. were these people anarchists and unethical?

a person that walks by their neighbor's house everyday and notices that they own a large number of pets that appear malnourished and unhealthy is considered a hero for turning that neighbor in for animal abuse and what is the final outcome? usually the animals are taken for their protection and if a suitable home can not be found ina timely manner those same animals are euthanized.

how is a person that sees a bunch of starving animals in the wild that are unable to recieve enough nourishment from the land anymore any less ethical for performing the euthanizing when it has become obvious that the authorities are not willing to control the population?


again, I am neither advocating or condoning the actions described and though my analogies are a little in-proportionant in scope, the overall precedent remains the same. laws and ethics are not interchangeable and anyone that argues contrary has obviously not spent much time in history class.

Sarge
July 15, 2012, 12:45 AM
I don't think they'll have to worry much. Since MO started its antler point restrictions, we are seeing lots of spikes, fours and sixes meet their demise in the grills of cars and pickups.

rickyrick
July 15, 2012, 12:53 AM
It's poaching and with added crime of failure to make reasonable attempt to recover the animal. Even if you kill a game animal illegally you have to attempt to recover it.

TheNatureBoy
July 15, 2012, 04:58 AM
Poaching!

gaseousclay
July 15, 2012, 05:23 AM
how is a person that sees a bunch of starving animals in the wild that are unable to recieve enough nourishment from the land anymore any less ethical for performing the euthanizing when it has become obvious that the authorities are not willing to control the population?

this is why we have hunting season. it's poaching no matter how you slice it.

Art Eatman
July 15, 2012, 09:25 AM
gaseousclay, the system of the OP has created the problem, so it's obvious that "hunting season" shooting of the deer fails to deal with the problem. If anything, it makes the problem worse.

If those in authority won't deal with the problem, who is left to do so?

To believe that obedience to a law is sufficient unto itself, regardless of harm: That is a Statist attitude, and is exactly what we see in government in WashDC today. It is what is desired by the TSA and Homeland Security.

Note: In a normal ecosystem, killing out of season or after hours, etc., etc., is indeed poaching.

I guess it's that I believe that rational killing for what is factually "the good of the species" or "protection of an ecosystem" is not poaching.

Although wildlife agencies try to have the best interests of game animals as their credo, that is irrelevant to the thesis of the OP.

tahunua001
July 15, 2012, 09:54 AM
this is why we have hunting season. it's poaching no matter how you slice it.
but that is the thing, the vast majority of these overpopulated animals are female or very small males so when he established hunting season rolls around they are still going to be illegal to harvest and no matter how long you leave the females they will always be untouchable by law. maybe if they are lucky and left for several years the bucks may eventually grow to legal size but that still does little or nothing to solve the immediate problem.

growing up in montana there was a similar situation with the mule deer population. they rarely congregated in large herds but there was way too many for the land to support and for the longest time only the bucks were allowed to be harvested. interestingly enough nobody seemed to care that the average buck was only around 120-140 pounds and usually was not the best of of eating but once dozens of cases of deer having blue tongue disease were confirmed fish and game started population control measures, easing restrictions and even allowed the purchase of an extra doe tag in certain areas. inside of just a few years, the average buck went up to around 170-190 pounds, had an extra couple points on his rack and though the disease problem never fully went away the numbers dropped down to only a couple confirmed cases a year.

Double Naught Spy
July 15, 2012, 10:04 AM
let's swing that another direction. all persons living in Nazi occupied europe during WWII were required by law to turn in any Jews that they found to authorities.

Wow, please don't tell me that you are invoking Godwin's law to justify poaching.

the overall precedent remains the same. laws and ethics are not interchangeable and anyone that argues contrary has obviously not spent much time in history class.

I have spent considerable time in history class and laws and ethics are sometimes interchangeable. In fact, the creation of many laws comes from the ethics of lawmakers at the time and the laws are really nothing more than codified ethics. Just because you don't share the same ethics as the law maker doesn't make the law unethical, but only unethical to you. Much of this is covered not under history, but under philosophy.

The notion of going out and killing off animals because you think it is the right thing to do because you don't have the patience to let natural selection deal with the issue really doesn't make your actions correct. I would posit that going out to kill the animals that you think are suffering is very unethical because while you may be putting an end to their suffering, you are taking from them their opportunity to survive. Not only that, but your criteria for killing them does not help the species from a natural selection perspective. Just because an animal is starving does not mean it is genetically inferior. So your shooting of starving animals (which are thusfar the smarter or genetically superior animals that have fought and struggled to remain alive under stressful conditions) means that you are actually doing more harm to the survival of the population as the genetically inferior animals are likely amongst the first to die off naturally.

Pahoo
July 15, 2012, 10:20 AM
interesting, game laws were never even brought up when I was in hunters ed
Well, I find it interesting but mostly disturbing. Not only do we teach this in the ethics section of our classes but we also dedicate about an hour for a state's conservation officer to review the exising laws, new laws as well as a question and answer segment. .... :)
We also hand out the current copy of Hunting and Trapping regulation. I'm sure all you guys read these every year. Right :confused:

These are times when it's quite common to grill the officer on concerns and problems. Just naturally comes out and handled quite well. One thing that does supprise me, in the level of politics that bureaucracy that exists. There are those at top that don't know the diference between a Muskrat and Tree-Rat. .... ;)

Be Safe !!!

buck460XVR
July 15, 2012, 10:21 AM
laws and ethics are not interchangeable and anyone that argues contrary has obviously not spent much time in history class.

I've yet to know of any history class that teaches Game Management and hunting regulations. Again, comparing modern hunting practices to the Revolutionary War is BS. Stating that breaking any law you don't agree with is perfectly fine is a snub and a kick to the groin of any brave soul that fought in that war to give us that right to govern ourselves. You're right tho, ethics and laws are different. One can use poor ethics while hunting that are legal and just be considered by many to be a slob hunter. Break the law while hunting and you are a criminal....period, no matter what the personal justification is. Consequences if caught are much different.

gaseousclay, the system of the OP has created the problem, so it's obvious that "hunting season" shooting of the deer fails to deal with the problem. If anything, it makes the problem worse.

Art, the scenario the OP presents is basically non-existent anywhere in modern America. With the popularity of hunting, the modern tools available for use and the multitude of seasons, the only reason this could ever happen is on private land that is not accessible to other hunters. Modern hunting bag limits and game management everywhere in the country allows for the harvest of female and juvenile animals when needed. State agencies can only control game populations in areas of public access, so if an area is overpopulated, it is because the private land owner created it themselves. Now you think they should be able to shoot animals outta season because they mismanaged their land? So much for them knowing better than the state as for carrying capacity. If this is a fantasy scenario, then the answer should be fantasy, but if one wants it to be realistic, they themselves should be realistic. Again, every poacher alive justifies to themselves why they poach, problem is, that reasoning don't float to the general public and game wardens.

I guess it's that I believe that rational killing for what is factually "the good of the species" or "protection of an ecosystem" is not poaching.

I believe the key word in that statement is Factually.
How factual is it that an average person can estimate game populations driving down the road @ 70 MPH? How factual is it that the majority of those claiming they are doing what's best for the land are just slob hunters justifying their poaching? I doubt that anyone here would tell another not to do what is right for "the good of the species" or "protection of an ecosystem", but the fact is, giving folks the right to hunt as they see fit is what decimated many game populations and drove others into extinction. Remember, if you're better qualified to manage the game in your state than wildlife officials, than so is your neighbor Bubba, and his nephew and the 14 others that hunt next door. The real facts are, that game laws and wildlife management as lame as they can be at times, are the only reason you and I have game to hunt at all.

Buzzcook
July 15, 2012, 03:28 PM
Before passage, 67% of the American people opposed Obamacare.
Art in the case of Obama Care you had very powerful special interests supporting that legislation. The same is true of the invasion of Iraq and the Bush tax cuts which weren't supported by a majority of citizens.

That generally isn't true of changes in to game limits. Another consideration there is lots of difference between a state rep and a US congress person.

arch308
July 15, 2012, 04:06 PM
Poaching is poaching, even if the reasoning is sound. I have heard that the landowner can "PETITION" TPW for special tags or some such. They eventually send an observer to count the deer on your property and then tell you what to kill for a few seasons. From what I have been told its is a long drawnout deal that is very restrictive.
I've had the same problem in the past and felt there were only 2 choices. Leave or spend a few seasons using your tags wisely, and your wife's if she hunts. And your buddys who want some extra meat for the freezer. As long as it's legal do what you gotta do. You can fix it, we did. After 3 seasons it proved to produce some decent bucks and overfilled the freezer every year.

jason_iowa
July 15, 2012, 04:16 PM
What's right or ethical is not always legal.
What is wrong or unethical is not always illegal.

Yes we are a country of laws but often times the laws are written to protect the interests of a few people even though they are clearly destructive to the majority of the people and the very fabric of the USA. On the other side their are many laws that people hate even though they are in the peoples best interest.

I have on a couple occasions shot deer that were hit by cars when the dnr or sherrifs department would not come deal with it. I won't stand by and watch an animal suffer because officers are to lazy to come do their job. I had another instance where a doe with a broken leg during a very hard winter was stuck in a drift in my back yard and was going to stave to death. I called the sherrifs dep. A deputy came out and was afraid his 9mil was going to skip off the snow and endanger the houses 300 yards away so he would not do anything. So when he left I put a 22 up to the does forehead and shot it. It was to weak to even struggle as we walked right up to it. So I guess I was guilty of poaching but I also did what I thought was humane. I'm not sure that what the people in the OPs example are right or wrong I'm no expert on game management its not something I would undertake.

Art Eatman
July 15, 2012, 07:06 PM
"Art, the scenario the OP presents is basically non-existent anywhere in modern America."

Which is exactly why in my first post I pointed out the false premise of the OP.

"I believe the key word in that statement is Factually."

With well over a century of family history in farming and ranching, "factually" as I used it is child's-play simplicity. It doesn't matter what species of herbivore is of interest. Carrying capacity is carrying capacity.

"...the patience to let natural selection deal with the issue..."

How long is "patient"? In the central Texas hill country, a half-century hasn't been long enough such that any natural selection has made any improvement.

"How factual is it that an average person can estimate game populations driving down the road @ 70 MPH?"

Can't. But observing a browse line in trees/brush is a lead-pipe cinch; most any rancher can do it. That shows range conditions.

Then there was the night on a highway north of Ozona when I had to stop and wait a moment before going very slowly through a herd of well over fifty whitetail which were wadded up from borrow ditch to borrow ditch. Or the evening on the way home from Luckenbach via Blanco and saw well over a hundred whitetail (by head count) in a five-acre oat patch; mostly does, about greyhound size. :D

tahunua001
July 15, 2012, 07:20 PM
Art, the scenario the OP presents is basically non-existent anywhere in modern America.
on the contrary. art himself gave personal experience with such a situation. the claims that the only overpopulated area are on private property and are the landowners fault is utter foolishness. most farmers prefer to get rid of deer because they compete with domestic animals for food and eat food crops. if wild animals are eating everything then that means more money that has to be spent to buy feed for cattle, sheep, goats, hogs and other livestock. there is not a farmer around that would ever be so stupid as to completely ban hunters from his property.

also this conversation is based off a real life situation that has been an ongoing problem in eastern Washington along the snake river basin where it just so happens to be on public land and open to everyone for hunting. it is accessible by boat and car so there really is no explanation as to why these deer are not hunted....oh yes except for they are illegal to hunt.

How factual is it that an average person can estimate game populations driving down the road @ 70 MPH?

now you are talking accurate census of the game. I can tell you that I do not have an accurate accounting of the animals....asside from taking the time to count them myself witha pad and a pencil to avoid losing count. after around 300 I gave up, my brother has counted over 400 on occassions. once you hit numbers like these accurate accounting of game numbers is irrelevant, general rule of thumb is 3 acres of wilderness or 1 acre of farmland per deer, this is wilderness so just one of these herds requires a ball park estimate of around 1500 ares of land to sustain itself and that is not counting the animals that do not belong to these herds. that is a pretty good indication that this animal is overpopulated in the region.

Art in the case of Obama Care you had very powerful special interests supporting that legislation. The same is true of the invasion of Iraq and the Bush tax cuts which weren't supported by a majority of citizens.

That generally isn't true of changes in to game limits. Another consideration there is lots of difference between a state rep and a US congress person.
this is not true at all. special interests groups shape a great number of our game laws. why else would there be special hunting seasons specifically for archers and muzzleloaders? there is no reason why a bowhunter can't hunt at the same time as rifle hunters are muzzleloaders.

there is no reason why some states should outlaw certain calibers, or others outlawing shredder arrowheads. there is no reason that some outlaw the use of electronic calls or why some states outlaw mineral licks.

these restrictions and concessions are made for the sole purpose of appeasing special interests groups. special interests groups are one of the few reasons that hunting is still legal in some states.

Buzzcook
July 15, 2012, 07:41 PM
this is not true at all. special interests groups shape a great number of our game laws. why else would there be special hunting seasons specifically for archers and muzzleloaders? there is no reason why a bowhunter can't hunt at the same time as rifle hunters are muzzleloaders.

Name me one bow or muzzle loader that opposes an increase in the number of deer they can take.

tahunua001
July 15, 2012, 08:59 PM
Name me one bow or muzzle loader that opposes an increase in the number of deer they can take.

the argument is not whether you should be allowed to take more than one. unless we are talking about hunters that fill every tag they have ever bought then there is a high likelihood that they would feel adequate with whatever the limit is. many shooters are lucky to fill even half of the tags that they buy. the issue is the animals that the existing tags can be used to harvest.

many people, especially in washington, oregon and california consider it unethical to kill a doe (whether legal or not). it is just a matter of the culture in which they find themselves. if you think logically. a single buck can impregnate over a hundred does in a single year while a single doe is only going to have a handfull of fawns over the course of it's life time. so to the uneducated masses, saving all of the does to hunt the bucks sounds like a good strategy for population control however all it takes is a single buck that is too small to be harvested to get mixed into a herd of does and he can quite easily impregnate the entire herd in short fashion.

the only way to effectively control a population is to control both sex of a given species and due to a strange squeamishness among west coast society, does are left alone and only mature bucks are allowed to be harvest. states such as washington are at a great disadvantage because the majority of the population lies on the western part of the state meaning that when the eastern part of the state has a dire need to get rid of does, the western part which may not have that same problem is easily able to vote against a proposed change to hunting laws because they see no need for it.

twins
July 15, 2012, 09:22 PM
OP,

Good luck in court with your reasoning. I'm betting you'll be a disgruntled citizen afterwards.

You don't like your state's hunting laws?
1) run for governor
2) start your own special interest group, since you think they have the power to change laws
3) don't follow it and if you get caught, let a court decide if you're right or not

otherwise, enjoy it legally.

I respect my local department of wildlife for what they've done to educate the public and management of resources. I've never met a bad wildlife officer but I've run into a number of unscrupulous hunters. For me, I put my trust in the DOW.

tahunua001
July 15, 2012, 09:52 PM
OP,

Good luck in court with your reasoning. I'm betting you'll be a disgruntled citizen afterwards.
ok first of all I would like to point out that I have been very clear that I neither advocated or condoned this action, I am simply pointing out that I empathize with the actions being taken by private citizens to protect their ecosystem.

You don't like your state's hunting laws?
1) run for governor
2) start your own special interest group, since you think they have the power to change laws
3) don't follow it and if you get caught, let a court decide if you're right or not
I am not a resident of Washington so none of those are going to do me much good. I live in Idaho on the I-W border and as soon as those dirty, diseased, starved does and midget bucks step over the state line they are fair game because my state realizes that controlling only one sex of any given species is a horrible way to manage game populations unless they are intentionally trying to bolster numbers rather than minimize them. they also realize that a statewide census of game animals is foolish and so they have the state split into about 100 different units based on geography and constantly increases or decreases restrictions as necessary per unit to maintain a healthy population across the board. however I do get a little perplexed when I take a 30 minute drive from my house and see hundreds of deer suffering that nobody is allowed to harvest and wonder why?



I respect my local department of wildlife for what they've done to educate the public and management of resources. I've never met a bad wildlife officer but I've run into a number of unscrupulous hunters. For me, I put my trust in the DOW.

I have the greatest respect for MY local F&G dept. however I have seen a great many public hunting areas closed because of people offroading and tearing up the countryside with 4 wheelers and then finding F&G vehicles sunk down to the frame in a mud pit well off of established roadways and trails so yes there is hypocrisy everywhere you go. does that mean that I would impede a game wardens duty? no

twins
July 16, 2012, 06:50 AM
I am simply pointing out that I empathize with the actions being taken by private citizens to protect their ecosystem.

A citizen has to follow laws, rules & regulations like all other citizens within the ordinance. Empathizing with illegal activities won't solve the problem. Ethically or not, hunting outside the law won't earn you any empathy points with the court, public, or fellow hunters.

Art Eatman
July 16, 2012, 09:25 AM
twins, I suggest that you do some reading on "jury nullification", when it comes to obedience to bad law. :)

Personally, I find that the concept of blind obedience to law as outweighing the health of an ecosystem to be philosophically disturbing.

DNS, it occurs to me that the idea of "let nature take its course" was thrown out the window sometime back when the first settlers began moving west. Highways, canals, railroads, farms, fences, pipelines, dams & reservoirs, navigation projects, timber-cutting, mining, cities and towns...What course is nature "supposed" to take?

buck460XVR
July 16, 2012, 06:06 PM
But observing a browse line in trees/brush is a lead-pipe cinch; most any rancher can do it. That shows range conditions.

Kinda like this one on the edge of a woods near me? Looks almost professionally trimmed, but it's not.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v333/buckanddot/bucks/100_9716aa.jpg


I am not a resident of Washington so none of those are going to do me much good. I live in Idaho on the I-W border and as soon as those dirty, diseased, starved does and midget bucks step over the state line they are fair game because my state realizes that controlling only one sex of any given species is a horrible way to manage game populations unless they are intentionally trying to bolster numbers rather than minimize them.

Funny, you claim Washington has so many deer that they are tripping over each other while they are staving to death. There's so many of them that they are evolving into midgets just to survive. But in this same hunting forum a few threads down, another poster claims that the gigantic 300 pound wolves are decimating the deer and elk populations in Washington State to the point there soon won't be any left. Which is it? :rolleyes:

Managing game populations is not an easy thing to do. Most hunters know which way they want it for THEM, but they don't consider the rest of the hunting population....... nor do they consider the non-hunters that may also enjoy watching and photographing those same animals. But state wildlife agencies do. They also have to consider crop damage to farmers along with property damage to vehicles and safety to the general public due to the result of deer/car crashes. They have to try and find the fine line between having populations high enough for the average hunter to have success, but still low enough for carrying capacity and safety. On public land many times they keep recruit(small, young deer) populations higher than normal because of high kill ratios for mature deer. Many reasons deer on large tracts of public land tend to be smaller......they are just younger. Their methods are not perfect, but over the years we still manage to have deer to hunt.....and a lot more than 40-60 years ago when we used Grandpa's method of game management. Thanks to Grandpa's game management deer populations were much lower than they are now with a buck/doe ratio that was completely outta wack. Grandpa's game management eradicated the wild turkeys from many states where they were native for centuries. Modern Game management has brought them back to record numbers and in places they were never found before. Grandpa and his dad hunted the passenger pigeons that once numbered in the billions around here to extinction. No modern Game management is not perfect, but it's pretty damn good. Much better than what most gun forum posters can muster. If one thinks they can justify poaching because they know more than the experts, so be it. Still makes them a violator and a poacher, even if their intent is noble.

most farmers prefer to get rid of deer because they compete with domestic animals for food and eat food crops

Not around here. Around here they hunt deer themselves. If they don't hunt, they sure as 'ell know how valuable deer are as a cash crop as per pay to hunt/lease options. In both cases, they prefer deer numbers to be high and allow very little, if any, access to other hunters. Many have access to state funded crop damage, but refuse it because they must shoot a good amount of antler-less deer to get it.

oneounceload
July 16, 2012, 06:23 PM
Poaching and no excuse whatsoever for their actions - even if they all had wildlife mgt/biology degrees

we do not choose which laws we follow and which we don't.

Yes we do - everyday, but we should be aware that there are possible consequences if we do not

When I lived in NV, poaching was a serious crime and the punishment was severe - if you chose to ignore the law you took the chance on jail, property confiscation, monetary fines, etc....

It's simple OP - if those folks feel there is a serious situation, then they should be talking to the state game folks and providing proof via photos or other means

tahunua001
July 16, 2012, 07:30 PM
Grandpa's game management eradicated the wild turkeys from many states where they were native for centuries

uh I'm pretty sure that the wild turkey was brought to the US by european settlers. to my knowledge there are no indigenous turkeys to the united states.
same with pheasants and prairie chickens.

another poster claims that the gigantic 300 pound wolves are decimating the deer and elk populations in Washington State to the point there soon won't be any left. Which is it?
that particular poster (wait a minute...oh I see what you did there:o ) was describing the current situation in montana, wyoming and idaho which were all part of the original wolf implantation programs. and yes, elk and highland deer populations have plummeted in recent years and due in no small part to wolves. those points were brought up in that topic to show a very possible and almost inevitable outcome if washington should also fail to control their wolf population. but that topic is not very central to this conversation although it also deals with the dilemma of carry capacity and over population of a specific species.

Hansam
July 16, 2012, 10:21 PM
uh I'm pretty sure that the wild turkey was brought to the US by european settlers. to my knowledge there are no indigenous turkeys to the united states.
same with pheasants and prairie chickens.

You've got that wrong bud. Turkey is indigenous to the US. Turkey however is NOT indigenous to Europe.

If I recall correctly the first turkey was introduced to Great Britain in the early 1500's and then it spread to the rest of Europe from there.

I may be off on when the turkey first went to Europe but the fact remains that turkeys are native to the Americas and not Europe.

Double Naught Spy
July 16, 2012, 10:37 PM
Hansam is right. Turkeys were not known in the Old World until travelers brought them back from the New World.

I personally have examined numerous turkey burials from SW puebloan sites dating back over 1000 years, along with dog, merlin, hawk burials. Turkeys occurred over much of North America, Central, and South America. Of course, the turkey burials were apparently domesticated turkeys, which is rather neat when you think about it, but they were not your Pilgrim's Pride type of white turkeys. Turkey was a common food of prehistoric Native Americans and their remains can be found in refuse middens of sites with long occupations and even short term sites.

Probably the oldest turkey remains I have examined would be about 6000 years, but they are not the oldest turkey remains found in association with human sites, not even close, just the oldest I have examined.

Remember from your history that Ben Franklin argued for the turkey to be the national bird of the new fledgling country (pun intended). He felt it symbolized America nicely, being of true American origin.

Art Eatman
July 17, 2012, 10:34 AM
Can't blame old Ben. Turkeys taste better than bald eagles.

buck460XVR
July 17, 2012, 12:48 PM
uh I'm pretty sure that the wild turkey was brought to the US by european settlers. to my knowledge there are no indigenous turkeys to the united states.
same with pheasants and prairie chickens.

As others have stated........Turkeys were a native species here in North America. Same goes for Prairie Chickens. Prairie Chickens were once very abundant the U.S., but hunting and loss of habitat have made them almost rare in most of their original range. Maybe them there "europeans" are the ones that introduced them midget deer........


that particular poster (wait a minute...oh I see what you did there ) was describing the current situation in montana, wyoming and idaho which were all part of the original wolf implantation programs.


No...he wasn't. He was talking about a situation in Washington state and the migration of Canadian wolves there. You can tell by the title of his thread....Should WA State Control Their New Wolf Population

Buzzcook
July 17, 2012, 03:45 PM
the argument is not whether you should be allowed to take more than one.

So this is in your OP

with none of these animals being harvested the population explodes and the animals begin to starve. the local authorities refuse to bring the population down to healthy numbers and refuse to lighten the restrictions on harvest requirements, meanwhile the animals suffer.

The possible solution you offer in the OP is wide scale poaching. That is an illegal increase in the number of animals hunters take.

I stated that there is a legal way to increase the game limits. Part of my reasoning was that there is no opposition to increasing the game limit.

In reply you stated that there were powerful interests involved in hunting. You pointed to archery and muzzle loading as examples. What you didn't do is point to any example of a lobby powerful or not that would oppose an increase in game limits in the example you gave in the OP. PETA doesn't count;)

BigMikey76
July 17, 2012, 03:52 PM
Personally, I find that the concept of blind obedience to law as outweighing the health of an ecosystem to be philosophically disturbing.


I think this statement leans toward the heart of this topic - Philosophy.

"Blind obedience" is certainly dangerous, but in any organized society, no matter what the form of government, there is a social compact in place. The philosophical nature of that compact is that the populace agrees to give up some of their individual rights to the government, and the government, in turn, agrees to govern in the interest of the people. The level of rights given up individually dictates the amount of power the government holds, and if the balance is not right, then there is either a government that is too weak to maintain control, or a government with too much power that ends up bullying the populace.

Assuming that the balance is right (whether it is or not is probably not a topic for this thread), it is incumbent on each member of the society to follow the laws the government makes, since the right to make and enforce laws is the primary right that has been given up by the individual. It is then incumbent upon the government to make sure that the laws are, in fact, in the best interest of the people they are governing.

This is where it gets fuzzy. The government, being formed of human beings, is not perfect. Never has been, never will be. When the people perceive that the government is wrong, they have the right and the responsibility to make it known and try to get things changed. That can take the form of petitioning, protesting, voting out leaders in favor of new blood, or any number of other methods, but the nature of the actions taken should fall within the established rules for accomplishing change.

A distinction needs to be made at this point. If I feel that my government is wrong, and the rules they have established are unreasonable, I still have the responsibility to follow them while I am trying to get them changed. Only if it is clear that the government is acting illegally or in some way violating the compact that has been established do I have the right to disobey.

A couple of examples of a government acting illegally or violating the social compact:
- Violations of Civil Rights
- Unconstitutional actions

A couple of examples of a government acting unreasonably, but not illegally:
- Enacting tax laws that don't make sense
- Enacting game laws that don't make sense
- Enacting any law that doesn't make sense

Here is the question that must be asked: Was this law put in place legally?
If the law does not violate any other existing statutes, and it does not violate the rights of the people who are subject to the law, then it is not illegal and should be followed.

Notice that there is no allowance for "that law is stupid, so I'm not gonna' follow it." It is not the right of the individual to randomly decide which laws to follow and which to break, assuming that the laws are legal. It IS the right of the individual to be the catalyst of change by gathering support and demonstrating to the government that the people are not happy with the current state of affairs.

Here is the toughest part for a lot of people to swallow:
Even when the majority of the population feels that the rule in question is not reasonable and should be changed, the government is under no obligation to change it. Representative government does NOT mean that the government officials are required to follow popular opinion. They ARE expected to use their best judgement and make decisions that are in the best interest of the people. The popularity of a law, however, is not often a good indicator of whether it is a good law or not. One example of this is taxes. Taxes are incredibly unpopular, but they are necessary, and the government is under no obligation to change or eliminate a tax based on popular opinion (please don't let this statement be the impitus for a partisan debate. I hate to see a good thread put down because it got infected with those darn poli-tics).

The only way to legitimately get a law changed based on popularity is to exercise your right to vote. Get the people you disagree with out of office, and replace them with people you like. If you can't get rid of them that way, then maybe their policies are not as unpopular as you thought they were.

OK. I am officially dismounting the soapbox now.

tahunua001
July 17, 2012, 06:06 PM
No...he wasn't. He was talking about a situation in Washington state and the migration of Canadian wolves there. You can tell by the title of his thread....Should WA State Control Their New Wolf Population
the topic at hand was whether washington should control their wolf populations however many of the reports of widespread destruction are coming from MONTANA, WYOMING, AND IDAHO
the discussion revolved around what actions should be taken to control the wolf population based on what has happened elsewhere in the country.


the argument is not whether you should be allowed to take more than one.
So this is in your OP

Quote:
with none of these animals being harvested the population explodes and the animals begin to starve. the local authorities refuse to bring the population down to healthy numbers and refuse to lighten the restrictions on harvest requirements, meanwhile the animals suffer.
did you purposefully remove the single sentence that I added to make my point just so you could continue this argument?
it is a lot easier to fill a tag if you are allowed to take either sex. since you are not able to, these animals are not being harvested and many hunters are not filling their tags because few of the animals in the region meet the minimum requirements for legal harvest. easing the requirements would allow these animals to be harvested rather than just issuing extra tags.

I think big mikey summed it up very well. he observes both sides of the discussion and points out where both are right and where both are wrong and makes very good arguments for both.

my main issue is one that he pointed out very well,
The only way to legitimately get a law changed based on popularity is to exercise your right to vote. Get the people you disagree with out of office, and replace them with people you like. If you can't get rid of them that way, then maybe their policies are not as unpopular as you thought they were.
in this case, it has been addressed several times that there is need of eased restrictions for hunting in this unit however, by popular vote it is denied. the land can't withstand it, the wildlife can't withstand it, many of the landowners and hunters know it but statewide the majority vote lies in the western half of the state. whether through ignorance or just a fear of change will not support such an action. this is where we find ourselves.
now that I've added that quick side note, I think you summed this discussion up very well.

twins
July 17, 2012, 09:09 PM
I guess we can argue this till we're all 6 feet under but the informal poll from this thread should tell the OP and Art that majority rules in our country. So "jury nullification" isn't in your favor Art.

Art Eatman
July 17, 2012, 10:04 PM
twins, it's moot. It's now legally possible in Texas to do just what I did. I was just a good many years ahead of the "professionals" on habitat restoration. Hey, it's all a learning curve, and they're young folks, busy reinventing the wheel. :)

Read the fable about the shape of the cell in a beehive. :D Aesop, IIRC.

cnimrod
July 18, 2012, 09:47 AM
the situation is in no way hypothetical.
Local Firearm restrictions prevent the discharge of weapons, including bows within most village limits. It takes an awful lot of non-hunters to get tired of the deer decimating their landscaping and colliding with their vehicles to get local laws changed or temporarily relaxed. Some towns hire professional sharpshooters many do let local hunters in with restrictions after a special training class. My town hasn't gotten to that point but what has happened is limited poaching has occurred to keep the numbers in check. (Much of it by local LEOs.) Also areas that were once open to hunting but are now closed are still hunted by the locals. Is it illegal - yes, unethical - probably not, but if everybody did it...

Double Naught Spy
July 18, 2012, 10:05 AM
Ah, but what is funny about that is that while many place may not allow for the discharge of firearms, they do allow for air rifles and there are some very nifty high powered air rifles, but few folks realize this and few folks would consider the option.

Art Eatman
July 18, 2012, 10:21 AM
The Texas deer herd was severely depleted by the 1930s and thus "Don't shoot does!" became the watchword. That emotion held even after the population explosion from both game laws and the eradication of the screw worm fly. Thus the rules on legal take, precluding does but for one doe per fifty acres. That created a Big Oops insofar as deer becoming pests in some areas.

I read where Alabama's limit was something like a buck a day. Dunno about does, but it indicates a very large population. OTOH, western Texas habitat in some areas will support one deer per fifty acres.

I still believe that the worst enemies of rational dealings with wildlife are Felix Salter and Walt Disney.

ZeroJunk
July 18, 2012, 10:55 AM
Here in the county I live and since I have been hunting it has gone from no deer season at all to bucks only, to bucks and doe.....

Now you can kill 6 deer all the same day if you want to. Only two can be bucks, but they can all be doe.

If that doesn't satisfy you two doe tags can be bought extra as many times as you want.

So, other than the two buck limit there is no limit.

It is a moving target over time.

BigMikey76
July 19, 2012, 10:08 AM
Ah, but what is funny about that is that while many place may not allow for the discharge of firearms, they do allow for air rifles and there are some very nifty high powered air rifles, but few folks realize this and few folks would consider the option.

Before using the air rifles in city, check your local laws. In my city, air rifles, BB guns and even sling shots can get you ticketed for "discharge of a firearm within city limits." I found this out the hard way when I was 15 and got in trouble for shooting BB guns in a buddy's back yard. A neighbor called to complain, and we both got ticketed.

dahermit
July 19, 2012, 11:14 AM
It always amazes me that while the great majority of people (I do not know of anyone who has not), will admit to breaking some law on purpose (speeding, parking meter, etc., etc.), they loudly denounce the people who break some other law. I can imagine some child molester voicing an opinion that poaching is "unethical".
Humans do seem to wear selective blinders.
"Judge not least ye be judged". "Your righteousness are as filthy rags."

cnimrod
July 19, 2012, 11:23 AM
rationaLIES are still LIES ;)

2damnold4this
July 19, 2012, 06:02 PM
When considering ethics in hunting, we have to think about several things.

We have to do right by the law, we have to do right by our fellow hunters and we must do right by our prey. Problems arise when one of these areas conflict with another.

If I had to prioritize, I'd put doing right by our prey first, doing right by fellow hunters second and doing right by the law third. I don't want to minimize the importance of doing right by the law and I'm not commenting on the Op but there are times the most ethical choice requires violating the law.

Art Eatman
July 19, 2012, 08:57 PM
Stable ecosystem? I doubt anybody here would condone poaching. There's certainly no justification in the lower 48 insofar as a need for meat; too much public assistance available. (When I was in the Army, the ration was four ounces of meat per GI per meal.)

tahunua001
July 19, 2012, 09:49 PM
I've heard stories about the lewis clark expedition. some of the men were eating as much as 5 pounds of meat a day....that is a lot of meat...but probably not much else.
and I agree, there is, unemployment, social security, food stamps and welfare and if that runs out there is a food bank in almost every town in america. my town has less than 1100 people in it and it has one.

poaching for food is almost an obsolete crime nowadays, it might not be an obsolete excuse however.

farmerboy
July 20, 2012, 09:51 PM
Well I'm not so quick to lock someone in jail for killing out of season or too many as long as they are not selling the meat. And as far as law goes, we have a speed limit too and how many on here go alittle past that? Laws are laws right? Let's say if our Government passed a law for Everyone to turn in all your weapons and that was Law. How many of us would grab everything we had and stand in line to turn everything in? I think Not! Law or not. Taking a deer or animal is way low on my list. Just saying

BigMikey76
July 21, 2012, 08:57 AM
And as far as law goes, we have a speed limit too and how many on here go alittle past that? Laws are laws right?

I think your logic is a bit flawed, here. Yes we do have speeding laws, and when someone gets caught speeding, he receives the appropriate punishment. Just because it is common to break a law does not mean that it is OK. It simply means that most people are willing to accept the punishment if they get caught. The point is that we do not have the RIGHT to speed, poach, steal, etc. Instead, we have an OBLIGATION to obey the laws. You can't legitimately argue that just because a lot of people break one law it should be OK for people to break another.

a7mmnut
July 21, 2012, 09:48 AM
To the OP: that's precisely what happens over and over again through time. State regulations in the USA seldom address the independent herd issues; rather they choose to regulate the entire population. Micro zoning is the only way to overcome this, and is unused by most wildlife agencies as to date. Just do the right thing. -7-

kilimanjaro
July 22, 2012, 07:08 PM
OK, so we also have millions of acres of timbered country with high fuel loads due to a century of fire suppression by the government's land managers. Think you should be able to torch off a few hundred ground fires to improve the health of the forest?

Get involved in the improvement of your public game resources and land management practices through the system, not in spite of it.

mquail
July 23, 2012, 07:52 AM
Same goes for Prairie Chickens. Prairie Chickens were once very abundant the U.S., but hunting and loss of habitat have made them almost rare in most of their original range. Maybe them there "europeans" are the ones that introduced them midget deer........

The Heath Hen is gone and the Attwater's is almost gone. I'm told the greater prairie chicken lives in only a few places in much of it's origional range such as Illinois and Wisconsin. Here? SD, Kansas and Nebraska have huntable populations of chickens. I'm not sure about OK or CO. We have a few chickens in the eastern portion of SD. I'm also pretty sure many organizations have been trying to put the lesser prairie chicken on various lists for a long time.

Brad